STOP
Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
journal-content .
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.
420 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
THE READING OF THE LAW AND PROPHETS IN
A TRIENNIAL CYCLE.
The public reading out of the Bible during divine service
is an old institution, and certainly dates back to the time
when the Jews and their Temple still existed in their native
land. Like every other religious ceremony it had a small
beginning, but it gradually developed till it assumed its
present stationary form, round which has grown a compre-
hensive code of rules. It is well known that the Palestinian
Jews completed the reading of the Pentateuch — which
formed the basis of the Scriptural lessons for the Sabbath
and holidays — in a period of three years, whilst the Baby-
lonian, and after them the European Jews, who followed
these latter in every religious question, arranged the read-
ing of the Law so that it should extend over only one year.
This difference of proceeding must be as old as the rearing
of Babylonian schools by Palestinian Rabbis, and is, indeed,
mentioned explicitly in the Talmud (B. Megilla, 296).
Although the majority of Jewish communities, as already
noticed, adopted the Babylonian custom, yet we learn from
the traveller Benjamin of Tudela, that in about the year
1170 there existed in Egypt congregations who were Pales-
tinian in this respect, namely, that their reading of the Law
extended over a period of three years (ed. Ascher, p. 98).
Shortly after this, in the year 1180, Moses Maimonides
writes (jbtr\ niDbn, xiii. 1) that the custom of finishing the
Law triennially was not by any means universal, from
which it is clear that many synagogues must have adopted
this style. Some time later Abraham Maimuni, the son of
the forementioned, informs us in his TnDHSbN rPNQS (MS.
Catalog. Neubauer, No. 1274, p. 56a) of the same fact, at the
same time giving an account of differences that transpired
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 421
in connection with other religious usages. Since these are
unknown, it would not be amiss to quote the whole of this
interesting passage.
anntnpi dnnsibs ^d mban ••art manaa 7s absn ?s aa^i
aHSbS ]d n231» a^tPiaffibS p WOS Sn^B TTTMTi ~)BD '•D
absbs ^b^S a">am -msprn nDsn D^asia sn-*B -rep son
aasibsi sasbsa asiabs sn^B abrosi nwrs (p. 56a) is
Y2 -is'osi va^Yt sabs asips rod rrrea pnbsi -oaabsa
?j? ntas anrrnp ]sb mom snppna sb asaDsb nsBasbs
sbi anb ^arp ab dn-pab van -nbs ?sb sasi -iHBasbs
n-sta ba ^ n-htaa ids asaDsb sasi -frr ••a nnpn ••a ypa
tvs ba -rnsi bsna "«bs bnp ba r*ai iba ba ^a n^srai
-voi t^-rpbsi nampbs ••a *ppibs *»a sa^n saa yh» ^sbros
Tibs Tbabs mn -»3 -it sbi is-i la-o^i na>aa ab saa -jbt
n-i»n sansins ismini&a ]sno^aa -rea nana sn^s ?na
min -isD •'S nsnpbsi nsbsbs ^a sn^a anaabs ^psnsbsa
snb ]sa ^astpbsa rpvn sann-osm abia mban "oa anaaa
nana mm -ibd "<b mn ">a np* -rns bab sabsaa anaa
■«3 mn "»q Dba^i nampbs ^d mn ^ ^yi -itd mn •'Bi
sas ?sai n-pna ns^sta ••a HNbfiasbs 7a *fn -pai nampbs
maDbs nb "reps rrYOi -is-itrsbs *it»i -frr naa^ bst nsa
oy» bsb ^si *frr p n>anD^ n^ a^aan "«Tobn p rrnai
sansi yc ?s siana nbs saa-rpn Vws ^a saabs nbs ?nai
p nsa-oa sa msDab sVrssa nrot p n^a sana-r sab
anaa 71a naasa bsavs natsbai n^n nsbsaaa bsanrcsbs
^nD-oabs.
" It is necessary that you should know that into the
practices of the Jews, both as regards the prayers and the
reading of the Law, many errors have crept from different
sources. Some are due to the blunders of the heads of the
congregation, which concerned the most important rules;
others to the fault of the Chazanim, who either knew little
or nothing at all. Hence the right became confused with
the wrong, the necessary with those which had no basis
whatsoever; the good customs with the reverse. These
people silenced the learned men and the Dayyanim, and
422 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
those who most vigorously led the opposition on grounds
which I shall not attempt to examine, partly because they
were not sufficiently powerful to give a practical effect to
their opposition, and partly because what seemed clear to
one was not at all convincing to the other ; nor could any
blame attach to them on this account ; and also because the
custom in all its details was not the same in every town, or
indeed, in every congregation, many differences prevailing
as I have explained in reference to standing in Kedusha
and Kaddisch, and in even still more respects than I have
mentioned. I have seen with my own eyes in the town
where I live — Kairo — two recognised synagogues, one of
which was known as the Babylonian, where the practice
accepted by all Jews in prayers and reading of the Law
was adopted; the other, the Palestinian, had a different
custom, for whereas in the former the whole weekly portion
was read every Sabbath, in the latter only a Seder was
recited. Again, in the former place of worship, Kedusha
was recited standing, in the latter sitting; and still other
variations in many respects. My father and certain sages
attempted to smooth away these divergences of Minhag, but
to no purpose, owing to the efforts of the worst of men and
others " {v. Hammanhig, p. 11).
Makrizi, about 1440 (see Schreiner in Z. D. M. G. vol.
xlv., p. 298), 1 mentions the existence of these syna-
gogues. An Egyptian, Joseph Sambari, in 1672, also speaks
of them (Neubauer Medieval Jewish Chronicles, p. 118);
it is not quite certain from his words whether the custom
still existed in his time, or whether he merely repeats the
account given by Benjamin of Tudela. (The Synagogue
was already destroyed.) This much is clear, at all events,
that there existed in Egypt certain communities who
adopted the Palestinian method of reading the Law. Gratz
says (Geschichte VI., p. 285 2 ), that those who practised this
1 It is extraordinary that the traveller, Meshullam b. Menachem
(Lunz's Jerusalem, I., p. 166) says nothing about this, though he could
have said much about the year 1441. * Cp. Monatsschri/t, 1869, p. 397.
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 423
asage made their way from Palestine to Cairo in conse-
quence of the persecution during the First Crusade. This
cannot be verified. The fact, however, remains that there
was a different reading in this town. Thus the solution of
the problem as to what were the Haphtarahs according to
the Palestinian practice could only be derived from docu-
ments which emanate from Egypt. And, indeed, we find
among the MSS. lately brought over from Egypt to the
Bodleian, one — to which my attention was called by Dr.
Neubauer — which enumerates the Haphtarahs of the first
seventy portions according to the Triennial Cycle, and gives
us some knowledge of a hitherto obscure subject.
We must attribute the more value to this fragment since
it is extremely probable that it comes from the above-
mentioned Synagogue, and is of considerable antiquity.
Before, however, we proceed to a consideration of the por-
tions of the Prophets, it is necessary to give an account of
the Pentateuch readings from their origin. The sources of
information at our disposal are the Talmudic and Midrashic
works of Jewish tradition, which have not been taken
sufficient notice of in respect to the development of this
institution.
The Development of the Pentateuch Readings.
Tradition assumes three stages in the development of
the custom of the reading of the Law ; the first is connected
with Moses, the second with the Prophets, and the third
with Ezra. It is well known that tradition has ascribed
to Moses and Ezra many institutions, whose origin, dating
back to ancient times, was already forgotten. To Ezra
especially is attributed all that pertains to the reading of
the Law and the arrangement of the Liturgy. It is possible,
because of the circumstance that tradition itself assumed
a development, to establish firmly the origin and historical
progress of this custom.
The Sifra to Leviticus xxiii. 43 infers from the verse,
424 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
"And Moses declared the festivals of the Lord to the
children of Israel," that Moses taught on each festival
those laws which are special to it. The same conclusion
is drawn in other language in the Sifre to Deut. xvi. 1 :
" Moses said, Take notice to read and explain the festival
portions (of Holy Writ)." From this passage we infer that
the introduction of the reading out of the Pentateuch had
its origin in the festivals, and we see also that tradition
supposes several stages of development in the institutions
of Moses, inasmuch as the festivals only are mentioned in
this passage of the Sifre. What was really the occasion
of this first reading ? It is not necessary to mention that
the first trace of the public reciting of the Law is in
Nehemiah viii. 8, for it does not speak of a lasting in-
stitution, which must belong to a later date. It is this
latter which claims our attention. It seems to me that
it was the Samaritans who gave the occasion for the
first step. We know that they were the religious as
well as political opponents of those Jews who returned
from exile. They showed their religious animosity chiefly
in their deviation from the ordinary explanation of those
portions of the Pentateuch which concern the festivals.
They were not satisfied with holding a passive opinion,
but tried hard to procure an acceptation of their par-
ticular views (Geiger, Z.D.M.O., Vol. xx., p. 540 ff.). The
people had to be taught by the Palestinian scholars how
to meet their attack ; this could not be better achieved,
or in a simpler manner, than by reading and explaining
the disputed passages in the Pentateuch on the Festivals
themselves which had been made the subject of contro-
versy. The time when this happened may be approxi-
mately determined. Josephus {Antiquities XIII. iii. 4) tells
us that the Samaritans in Egypt about 140 B.c. received
permission of the king to enter into public disputation
with the Jews. Gratz (Geschichte iii., 4 p. 44) is of opinion
that this desire was aroused in consequence of the Septua-
gint translation, which did not take into consideration
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 425
the Samaritan misreadings of the Pentateuch. It is also
possible to assume that this disputation was an opportunity
for the bursting forth of a hatred which had held out a
long time in Palestine without having produced a dispute.
Again, Sirach in his preface informs us (v. Philo, De Somniis
II., 18 ; cp. Gratz, he. cit, p. 42), 1 that already in the second
century B.c. the Egyptian Jews had as a permanent insti-
tution the public reading of the Law, with all accessory
expositions, and since all the religious observances were
borrowed from Palestine, it follows that the Jews in this
latter country, at about 200 B.C., must have already intro-
duced this practice. 2 The opposition of the Samaritans
was directed to the institution of the Passover as to whether
it really depended on the time of the year, the exposition
of the phrase ratpn mn»» in Leviticus xxiii. 15, and
the Lulab used on Tabernacles. The Pharisees, as is well
known, explained the words, " the day following the Sab-
bath," that on the second day of Passover the first sheaf
has to be brought ; from that date seven weeks were
counted, and on the fiftieth day — the same on which
the second day of Passover fell — and which is the
sixth of Sivan, the festival of Shebuoth was celebrated.
On the other hand, the Samaritans and Boethusians con-
tended that by rote is meant the ordinary Sabbath which
occurs in the Passover week. Consequently the Omer
should be brought on the Sunday, and on the eighth
Sunday the festival of Shevuoth should take place, the day
of the month being variable. Just as literally did they
explain the law regarding the Lulab, and also the date
of the Passover holidays (Geiger, loc. cit., p. 544). Thus
the controversy concerned all the three festivals (men-
tioned in Leviticus xxiii.), on which tradition assumes the
1 Philo (loc. cit., p. 168, 130) agrees with Josephus in ascribing to Moses
the introduction of Law-reading only for Sabbath and Festivals. See Ber-
liner's Magazin, vii., p. 66.
* For Philo's articles on Divine Service vide Schurer, Gesehichte des
Jiid. Volkes II., p. 376.
426 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
first reading of the Law to have occurred. Tradition
moreover bases the introduction of the custom on the same
chapter. The expression W7\p W)p», which is used in refer-
ence to a festival, may have been taken by those teachers
who introduced it as a Biblical warranty for this new rite,
inasmuch as they may have paraphrased it to mean,
" holy reading out of the Torah " (Hamburger, Heal
Encyclopadie II. ; article " Vorlesen " ; Friedmann, Beth Tal-
mud III., p. 6, ff.).
Tradition also refers back to Moses the reading of the
Law on the four special Sabbaths in the months Shebat
and Adar (v. Tractate Sopherim xxi. 4) ; and here also it is
possible to discover the period of its introduction. The
commencement of the so-called Chronicle of Fasts (Ate-
gillath Ta'anith) reads as follows : — " From the 1st to
the 8th of Nissan it is prohibited to fast, because during
this time the question concerning the daily offering was
determined. No public funeral oration should be delivered
during these days, because the Sadducees asserted that
this offering should be brought as a free-will sacrifice by
every individual. They base their opinion on Numbers
xxviii. 4, 'Thou shalt bring each of you a lamb,' where
the verb is expressed in the singular, and signifies an
individual. Against this view the sages declared : ' This
is not the correct interpretation of the quotation in
question, for the only method of bringing a congregational
sacrifice is by general contribution.' Then the sages, when
they gained the upper hand, ordered that Shekalim should
be collected and placed in the temple, which shekels should
be used to defray the expenses of the daily offering. The
eight days during which the controversy lasted were to be
celebrated in future as half-holidays." Thus far the
Chronicle. We know that this event took place 79 B.C.,
and since the Talmud enumerates other institutions which
owed their origin to this victory of the Pharisees, we can
assume with much probability that the reading of the
portion of Shekalim was introduced in order that the
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 427
people should have adequate knowledge of the disputed
passages.
Nor did the controversy between the two parties rage
only in respect to the Shekalim, but also the ceremony of
the Red Heifer formed a subject of strife. 1 The portion
which treats of this subject is also read on one of the four
special Sabbaths.
On another of these Sabbaths is read the passage deal-
ing with the declaration of the New Moon of Nissan. This
also formed an object of dispute to these religious sects. It
is probable that the fourth Sabbath, called tdt after the
first word in Deuteronomy xxv. 17, had its origin in this
quarrel, inasmuch as the Pharisees impressed on the people
the necessity of avoiding Hellenism in all its forms by
alluding to the enemy whose customs the Hellenistic Jews
adopted. This action was directed against the leaning of
the Sadducees to Greek habit and culture.
A third tradition carries us still further in the his-
tory of the development of the Pentateuch readings. It
informs us in connection with the citation of Leviticus
xxiii. 44 (Jerushalmi Megilla, iv. 1) that Moses introduced
the reading of the Law on Sabbaths, on festivals, New
Moons, and Half-holidays (v. Tractate Sopherim x. 1). We
have already seen, what occasioned the reading on the
festivals. In respect to the Sabbath there is no need to
inquire after a special historical origin, for it was merely
an extension of the custom that had already been estab-
lished on the festivals and the four Sabbaths. It must
have been introduced before the Christian era ; for the
Apostles (Luke iv. 16 ; Acts xiii. 15 and xv. 21) mention
the reading on every Sabbath as an established rite.
Again, Josephus (Contra Apionem ii. 18) 2 ascribes the inno-
vation to Moses, from which it is clear that it was for
' Geiger, Ursohrift, p. 134. Lerner in Berliner's Magazin, x. p. 143.
* oi)K ifaawaZ aKpaaaapivoc ovdk Uq t) jroWacif aW i/cuartjc i/SioitdSog
ruv aXXwv tpywv aiptfiivovc, it* rijv atpoaaiv rov vojtov UiXivot ovWiytaBai
cat tovtov aKpipiSs iKftav0avtiv.
428 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
him an ancient institution, and one in vogue before the
common era. The expression amp N"ipO in Leviticus
xxiii. 3 gives us a warranty for this introduction, yet the
phrase is not found in connection either with the Half-
holiday or New Moon. If, however, we examine the Me-
chilta (to Exodus xii. 14, 17 ; xiii. 6), we find that it estab-
lishes the conclusion that the middle days of the feasts
are called t»Tlp K"ip». Add to this the fact that these
days as well as New Moon are included in Numbers
xxviii. and xxix. among those occasions on which a
Musaph offering is to be brought, and are considered as
festivals, and the introduction of Torah readings on these
occasions becomes intelligible to us.
The reading on Saturday afternoon and Monday and
Thursday mornings is in the Mechilta to Exodus xv. 22,
ascribed to the Prophets (see Weiss and Friedmann on
this passage) and in Jerushalmi Meg. iv. 2 to Ezra. This
institution is at any rate of a later origin than those
already mentioned, since tradition assigns it to later au-
thorities than the others. It probably originated in the
time of the first Tannaim, after the destruction of the
Temple, when every opportunity was seized to acquaint
the people with a knowledge of the Law. Monday and
Thursday had already been set aside as Court days from
ancient times. In the Jerushalmi (loc. cit.) this institution is
attributed to Ezra. On these days the villagers used to
assemble in the towns, and consequently the Law was read
on Monday and Thursday in preference to other week
days.
Before we treat of the extension of the custom to in-
clude Chanucca, Purim and the fast days mentioned in the
Mishna {Megilla, iv.), without naming the originators, it is
necessary to set forth those passages which were read in
synagogues on the festivals and Sabbaths which we have
already dealt with. We saw that the opposition of the
Samaritans, which was the cause of the introduction of
the festival readings, applied to many verses in Leviticus
The Triennial Beading of the Law and Prophets. 429
xxiii., so that it follows that on each festival portions were
selected to be read out of this chapter. The Mishna (Jfc-
gilla iii. 5) established this as a law by enacting that Levi-
ticus xxiii. 4 should be recited on the 1st day of Pesach,
ver. 23 on the New Year's Day, and ver. 33 on Tabernacles
(v. Miiller, Tractate Sopherim, p. 242). For Shebuoth and
Yom Kippur, however, it selected Deut. xvi. 9, and Levit.
xvi. 1 respectively, that is to say, the selection was not
in these cases from Leviticus xxiii., and this fact needs
explanation. From the fact that the Mishna endorses our
view in three cases, we infer that originally the readings
for the two above-mentioned feasts were also taken from
Leviticus xxiii. ; in the course of time, however, a change
was made in the Pentateuchal lessons, the nature of which
we shall now proceed to consider.
We notice that even the readings which the Mishna
ordained should be chosen from Leviticus xxiii., gradually
lapsed in the Synagogue, others taking their place. Again,
we see that an altogether new festival lesson is introduced,
a Boraitha (B. Megifla, 31a) naming Exodus xiii. as the
portion for the 7th day of Pesach. Although this latter
festival is designated B?"T1p Hnpa, yet neither the Mishna,
nor Tosefta, nor Palestinian Talmud, assigned to it a special
reading. The reason for this omission is clear from what
has already been said. This festival had no importance in
the controversy that ensued between the Samaritans and
the Pharisees. Consequently no public explanation of any
particular text was deemed necessary, so that originally
there was no Torah recitation on that day. Yet why was
Exodus xiii. chosen later on ? Was it because tradition had
it (Mechilta on this passage) that the passage through the
Bed Sea took place on this day; that, therefore, the
portion of the Bible which described that incident was
chosen as the lesson ? And granted that this is so, is this
no new stage in the development that such pieces should
be selected as commemorate an event that happened on
the same day ? Let us add to this what the Babylonian
430 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
Talmud (Megilla, 31a) has to say on this subject, namely,
that the Babylonian Jews read out of Leviticus xxiii. on
the 1st day of Pesach, and yet on the 2nd day from Exodus
xii. Both Pesiktas also enact that both these pieces should
be read as festival portions, though in reverse order. Now
we ask, How is it that this second portion was chosen,
if it were not in commemoration of an event that hap-
pened on that day ? Further, we see that the Tosefta
(Megilla iii. 6) gives Genesis xxi. as the New Year reading
in place of that given by the Mishna and Tractate Sqpherim
(xvii. 6), namely, Leviticus xxiii., which, however, though
only cited by the Tosefta with the formula, " Some
say," must be considered as the original. The Boraitha
(Megilla 31a), the Talmud (J. Megilla iii. 7), and both Pesik-
tas give these two portions, declaring the Genesis reading
to be the first. Here we must emphatically ask, Where is it
explicitly stated in the Bible that Sarah was remembered on
New Year's day ? What led the Aggada to make such a
statement ? Should we not rather thus explain the matter,
that independent of any purpose, this portion was read on
New Year, and on this account was it that the incident of
the birth of Isaac became associated with that festival ? Yet
why was this part of the Law recited on so solemn an occa-
sion ? A simple way out of the difficulty is supplied by a
consideration of the triennial reading of the Law, which
must undoubtedly be presupposed in Palestinian sources,
in the Mishna, Palestinian Talmud, the Boraitha and the
Tosefta.
As is well known, the Masora enumerates 154 divisions
in the Pentateuch, called Sedarim, which Rappoport
(mp mybn, p. 11) already recognised as the Sabbath
readings of the triennial system.
This conjecture is supported by the fact that paragraphs
of the Midrashic- works of Palestinian origin are connected
with these Sedarim, so that each portion was arranged for
its special Sabbath, and formed the groundwork of the
Midrashic discussion in the Synagogue. (Rappoport in Erech
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 431
Millin, article NmtaSH ; Derenbourg in Manuel du Lecteur,
p. 530 ; Miiller in Tractate Sopherim, p. 221 ; Theodor in
Gratz's Monatsschrift, year 1885, p. 356.) 1 We must also
take into account the imperfectly preserved "Aggada to
Genesis " (Jellinek : Beth Hammidrasch, IV.), which shows,
not only by its Pentateuchal, but also by its Prophetical
passages, that it supposes a triennial system of reading the
Law and Prophets. 2 The number 155, which the Midrash
also mentions {Esther Rabba I.), can scarcely be brought
into question (v. Friedmann in Beth Talmud, III.) ; and yet
three other computations are cited against it. The Yemen
grammar, known as the Manuel du Lecteur, giving a de-
tailed list of the Sedarim, enumerates 167, which are too
many for three years, as at most these can only comprise
161 Sabbaths. The great Massorite, Menachem Meiri
(died 1306), in his work, "ISO rmp, under the head of
D^atPH-in nu, reckons 161 divisions in all, which
correspond to the greatest number of Sabbaths possible
in three years. Against this we have the number 175,
mentioned by the Tractate So/erim (xvi. 10), supported by
the Talmud (J. Sabbath, I., 1), as the total of the Penta-
teuch divisions. This, however, cannot be justified. The
explanation of Solomon Algazi (Zunz, Oottesdienstliche
Vortrage, 3 p. 3, note /), that this enumeration corresponds
to the number of Sabbaths in three and a-half years, since
the Torah was read through twice in seven years, is very
tempting. There is, however, no mention of this custom
in the ancient sources. The Talmud, indeed (B. Meg.
29b), says explicitly that the Torah was in Palestine read
through in a period of three years. Granted, now, that
the figure 175 is the result of an interpolation — which,
indeed, is extremely probable (Frankel's Zeitschrift, year
1844, p. 357) — the question in reference to the other three
1 Cp. Epstein, DH1HM nVJIOnpD, p. 57.
2 Theodor, loc. eit., p. 405.
3 Epstein, loc. eit., p. 59.
432 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
opinions is not yet settled, since the attempt has not yet
been made to discover what really were the portions read
on particular Sabbaths in accordance with the triennial
method. Since it has now been determined that the
Midrashic works, on account of their Palestinian origin,
proceeded on the basis of a triennial cycle, the system
of the ancient readings can only be gathered from these
sources. The most important question to decide is, When
was the reading of Genesis commenced ? and also that
which goes naturally with it, When was the reading
of the Pentateuch brought to a finish ? The divisions,
according to the annual system adopted by the Samari-
tans, Babylonian Jews, and Karaites, commenced with the
last Sabbath in Tishri, from which it might have been
inferred that this also was the first Sabbath among the
Palestinian Jews. This, however, is very doubtful, since
it is nowhere stated in the Babylonian Talmud that this
formed the starting-point in the time of the Amoraim. If
we divide, first of all, the 155 Sedarim into three parts
corresponding to the three years, we find that thej' are
Genesis i. till Exodus x., Exodus xi. till Numbers vi.,
Numbers vi. 22 till Deut. xxxiv. Let us notice first the
third part, so as to discover when the cycle terminated.
The first portion of the same includes the priestly bless-
ing, and the offerings of the twelve tribal chiefs after
the erection of the tabernacle. Tradition assumes, on the
basis of Exod. xl. 2 and Levit. ix. 22, that both of these
took place on the 1st of Nissan. Was it not natural that
the Sabbath lessons should be so arranged that this por-
tion should be read on the first Sabbath in the month of
Nissan ? It follows from this, naturally, that Deuteronomy
xxxiv. must have been read in Adar, so that the Penta-
teuch could be recommenced on the 1st of Nissan. Now
we know that in Adar there were three special Sabbaths
on which certain specified portions were read peculiar to
these days, so that the reading of the Pentateuch must
have been brought to an end on the first Sabbath in Adar.
The Triennial Beading of the Law and Prophets. 433
That this really was the case is evident from this striking
Aggadic passage. The Mechilta to Exodus xvi. 35 reads : —
rrrca ma nns yan n« ibsN nv a^ms -ibis wdmv "o-i
by> b-hkwi mms laaa lb^si -n«a nsntw na na?a "Tjro
••mian -itsbs '"i • a^rns nn p">a bt» nws nttrcn -ns bar
nt&a tto rroa bt» vwa -ins jan ns lbas av> a^arc -ibis
-ns bt» a^ nsa-isi antro laaa lbosi -nsa nj?2t»n na
nt&an ni-vn -na» nat&tt ^t»n -ns b» a^anbttn pt&s-in
ib^S BV B"»»B» IBIS "Wbs "31 B"»»2t» nn p^a bt» -)t»&
nsarca na nana tto rwa ba; mn^a -ins pn ns bs-w
B^lblM B3t» b» BiB"' n»2"Kl UnWV 13BB lbDSl B2t»2
• ipta b» -IH7S mow) maws nn*n sb naa? nnisi tin ba?
" R Joshua says the Israelites ate of the Manna forty
days after the death of Moses, for he died on the 7th Adar,
and the twenty-four days of Adar and sixteen of Nissan
(Joshua vi. 11) together make forty. R Elazar, opposing
him, is of the opinion that they ate of this food seventy
days after their leader's death, since it was a leap year,
and, therefore, contained thirty days more. Rabbi Eliezer
quotes seventy as the number, since, in his opinion, Moses
died on the 7th of Shebat, the tale of days between this
date and the 16th of Nissan being seventy." 1 One must
feel greatly astonished at this vivid imagination of the
Tannaim, and one cannot help finding it odd that they
dispute about a date which has not the least founda-
tion in Holy Writ. If, however, we remember that
the portion in which the death of Moses is described,
Deuteronomy xxxiv, was always read about the 7th of
Adar, we at last come to understand how it is that this
peculiar date was taken. The reckoning of this death-day
was made in a year in which the 7th Adar fell on a Sab-
bath, which was not always the case ; therefore is it that
we find different accounts, fluctuating between the 6th,
1 I quote this passage from the edition of Friedmann, which preserves
the third portion— omitted by Weiss— on the authority of theYalkut. The
MS. in the Bodleian Library (Catalogue Neubauer, No. 151) has it also ;
and, in addition to these proofs, it is otherwise thoroughly authenticated.
VOL. V. E E
434 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
7th, and 8th, as the correct date of Moses' death (v. Weiss
on this passage and Seder Olam, ch. x.).
We shall return later on to the opinion of R. Eliezer,
who placed the day as the 7th Shebat. We are now
in possession of the exact dates on which the Torah
reading was begun and finished, and we need only inquire
whether the readings of the first two years fall in
line with this arrangement. We found that Exodus xii.
formed the opening chapter of the second year of the
triennial cycle. Now the first verse of the chapter reads :
" This month shall be unto you the first of all months,"
and orders that Nissan should be counted as the first of the
months. It is hardly necessary to point out that this
lesson was proper to and suitable for the first Sabbath of
the month Nissan. The first reading of the first year,
Genesis i., is also perfectly consistent with this view ; for
we see that, in the opinion of R. Eliezer, the world was
created on the 1st Nissan (B. Rosh Hash., 106). In order
to give a detailed explanation of every one of the passages
in the triennial cycle, it is necessary to give an account
of the further division of the Sedarim.
I commence with the second year, as here we have at
our disposal a good many statements to help and guide us
in our investigations. In the same passage of the Mechilta,
wherein the death of Moses is so exactly determined, the
Aggadist dogmatically asserts that the exodus of the
Israelites from Egypt took place on Thursday, the 15 th
Nissan (v. Seder Olam, cap. x.). Let us examine such a
year, in which the 15th Nissan fell on a Thursday, as an
example of our division, and let us follow the Aggadist's
dates also in the arrangement of the Sedarim. Since in
that year the 1st of Nissan was on Thursday, the first
Sabbath must have been the third of the month. On this
day, as already stated, Exodus xii. 1 was read. In the
third verse the command is given by Moses to have the
Pesach Lamb ready by the 10th of Nissan. This day was
a Sabbath, which was called "the great," on account of
The Triennial Reading of the Laic and Prophets. 435
the miracle mentioned in the Mechilta as having been per-
formed on that day. The carrying out of the command
is described in xii. 21, which is, in accordance with my
view, the portion of the second Sabbath. The same Agga-
dist remarks on xiv. 2 that the Israelites who went out
from Egypt on Thursday, encamped at Ramses on Sab-
bath, 17th Nissan, on which day, therefore, xii. 37 was
read. In xiv. 9, he comes to the conclusion that the
passage through the Red Sea occurred on Wednesday the
21st of Nissan, and therefore Exodus xiv. 9 was read on
this day, the 7th of Pesach. If we examine this result in
the light thrown by the Mechilta on this subject, we are
furnished with the solution to the question propounded
above, What was the occasion of the reading of Exod. xii.
29, on the 1st day of Pesach, and xiii. 17, on the 7th ? The
answer being that these passages were regularly reached
on those occasions. When, later on, it was seen that these
two Sedarim were well suited to these holidays, they were
established, even when the three years' cycle was not in
vogue, as the ordinary lessons of those days. 1 Let us
follow the same authority further. It is stated in xv. 22
that the Israelites, after passing through the sea, wandered
three days in the wilderness, and found no water till they
— according to the computation of our exegetist — came to
Marah on Sabbath, where the Sabbath Law, among others,
was enunciated. Hence we infer that xv. 22 was the
reading for the fourth Sabbath. A second tradition {Seder
Olam, cap. v.) endorses this view by declaring that the
Israelites came to Rephidim on Sabbath, 29th (according
to the Mechilta, the 28th) of Iyyar. Our Aggadist tells
us in reference to xvi. 1 that the 1st of Sivan fell on
1 It seems that in Palestine the fourteenth chapter was read only till
verse 29th, and that the following portion commenced with J?CV1, which
explains the Midrash of the same name. Tradition also has it (Seder
Olam, v.) that the crossing over of the Bed Sea happened at evening,
whilst the JYYSf was sung on the following morning. It is more probable
that the festival reading itself began with JTCW1.
E E 2
436 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
Sunday, and the Revelation on the 6th, Friday ; further
he says, on xix., that the first verse speaks of the New
Moon, so that we have here the reading for the first
Sabbath in Si van. 1
With the help of the Mechilta, which, on account of the
date explicitly given in Exodus xvi. 1, is only of par-
tial assistance to us, we can assign to the five Sabbaths of
Iyyar the text from xvi. 1 to xviii., which gives the four
portions — xvi. 1, 28 ; xvii. 1 ; xviii. 1. For the 1st and
8th of Iyyar, the verses that treat of the incident of the
Manna thus formed the Pentateuchal lessons. 2
For the 29th of Iyyar, in such a year as is cited by
the Mechilta, wherein Iyyar has five Sabbaths, there
remains xix. 6. On Shebuoth then the Decalogue was
read, which gives us the reason why this portion later on
was always chosen as the lesson for Shebuoth. It followed
simply from the fact that in the second year of the cycle,
in the ordinary course of reading, this portion was reached
at this festival, and was then carried over to other years. 3
1 Seder Olam, v., agrees with all the accounts given in the Mechilta,
with the trifling exception that it makes the exodus from Egypt happen
on Friday, and consequently the Revelation on Saturday. Yet the MS.
Catalogue, Neubauer, No. 692, is in total agreement with the Mechilta.
For us, this difference is of little import. At any rate, this fact is apparent,
that, like the death of Moses, it admits of various dates, which, however,
are all confined to the same week, since it is connected with the weekly
portion.
2 It is stated (vi. 4) in the Gospel of St. John, which gives compara-
tively exact dates, " Pesach, the feast of the Jews is near," and in vii. 2,
" Tabernacles is drawing near." Between these two dates there is a
sermon on the Manna, which — according to vi. 59, " he said this in the
Synagogue when he was teaching in Capernaum," — was delivered on
Sabbath, and was probably connected, according to prevailing custom,
with the weekly portion. We have seen that this was recited either on
the first or second Sabbath of the month Iyyar.
3 The Shebuoth portion for the Babylonian Jews commenced with
chapter xix. It can be proved that in Palestine it began with xx., since
the Seder before extended from xix. 6-25. It is stated in the Talmud
(2?. Nedarim, 38a) that the Palestinians must have divided Ex. xix. 9
into three parts, since no reading could contain as many as twenty-one
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 437
I have dealt with the Mechilta passages with this detail
for the purpose of showing that many Midrashic state-
ments imply, and at the same time prove that they are
hased on a division of the Sedarim according to a trien-
nial cycle. It follows from the reckoning, which is derived
from tradition, that out of eight Sedarim given in the Mas-
soretic divisions of the Pentateuch, ten Sabbath lessons
were formed. We saw that this latter method of appor-
tioning readings removed naturally difficulties which be-
long to the development of the festival readings. It
makes clear to us that the first occasion for the read-
ing of portions on festivals which commemorate events
which happened in the same holiday is derived from
Exodus xii., xiii. and xix., and this mode of selection also
reorganised other festival lessons. In the apportioning of
the various successive Sedarim, we assign Exodus xxi. for
the 7th Sivan, and xxii. 24, for the 14th ; this latter
chapter, the Seder Ohm (Cap. vi.), also connects with the
same date. For the Seder Olam remarks that Moses
climbed Mount Sinai seven days after the Revelation. This
event is narrated in the Biblical chapter in question read
on the 14th of Sivan. We are next able to assign Ex. xxxiv.
1 as the reading on the last Sabbath of the month Ab,
with which opinion tradition is in accord {loc. cit), inas-
much as it informs us that Moses went up Mount Sinai
with the tablets of stone on the 29th of Ab, 1 which occur-
rence is related in xxxiv. 1. Lev. i. falls on the last Sabbath
in Elul; iv. 1 on the 1st of Tishri; v. 1 on the 2nd; vi. 12
on the first Sabbath in Tishri ; viii. 1, on the Day of Atone-
ment. I have here supplied the two festivals with lessons
which are nowhere mentioned in the Eabbinical sources,
verses. This division is only necessary if the portion, xix. 6-25, stands
alone, which contains only twenty verses, whence it is clear that chapters
xix. and xx. conld never have been read together.
1 MS. Catalogue, Neubauer, No. 692, differs from this account by one day
remarking nBT13 TFI&y 72 3N3 DISS'S D*jmK ~W HK^, which is
only another computation based on the same text.
438 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
yet which must be assigned to these festivals in the ordi-
nary course of the triennial reading. We saw that those
selections were recited on first and seventh days of Pesach
and Shebuoth, which were reached on those festivals in the
unbroken succession of Sedarim. This must also have been
the case with the New Year and Day of Atonement.
This view is confirmed in another quarter. The Mishna
(Megilla iii. 6), says that those parts of the Torah that
are read on Monday and Thursday must be repeated on
the following Sabbath, since the duty is imposed on us by
Leviticus xxiii. 44 to read every portion in its suitable
time. This admonition evidently presumes that the
continuous reading of the Law on successive Sabbaths
would naturally assign the portion connected with a certain
festival for that very occasion. This is undeniably proved
in the case of the three days already mentioned, and con-
sequently it must apply also to the Day of Atonement.
It seems pretty clear that Leviticus viii. 1 to x. 7 must
have been read on the Great Fast, since a Boraitha has
shown the identity of the sacrifices offered on the Day
of Atonement with those described in Leviticus ix. (B.
Joma, 4a). Again, the Midrashic discussions demonstrate
that the offering mentioned in this chapter atoned for the
sins committed in connection with the Golden Calf, which
another tradition {Seder Olam, ch. vi.) states were forgiven
on the Day of Atonement. We have yet another proof
that the portion was recited on the Feast in ancient times.
The Mishna {Megilla iii. 4) establishes the following rule :
" The course of the Torah readings should be interrupted
on New Moon, Chanucca, Purim, fast days and the Day of
Atonement." The question which naturally arises in
connection with this enactment, and which is asked by
all commentators, namely, Why is only one of the festi-
vals mentioned? — cannot be easily answered. If all in-
genious guesses are avoided, it follows simply that at the
time when the regular Sabbath readings were introduced,
those Sedarim were read on the festivals which fell to
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 439
their share in the course of the ordinary reading. This
applied also to the Day of Atonement, and it was only at
a later date that Leviticus xvi. was substituted for Leviti-
cus viii. 1. The origin of this change was probably due
in the first instance to the fact that this portion was re-
cited in the Temple by the High Priest (Joma vii. 1), and
the festival itself is mentioned towards the finish. Whether
the fact that the occurrence narrated in x. 7 is continued
in xvi. 1 had anything to do with the choice of this por-
tion cannot be determined. In regard to the apportioning
of the other Sedarim, we only remark that Numbers was
commenced on the second Sabbath of the month Shebat,
and that the four following selections were so arranged
that the last one was read on the Sabbath of the week in
which the 7th of Adar fell.
The third year of the cycle, as already stated, opened
with Numbers vi. 22, and in a year when the 1st of
Nissan fell on a Sunday, this portion would be delivered
on the Sabbath before. Such a year it was when the
events related in the Seder happened (Sifre and Midrash
to the passage; Seder Olam vii.). This explains what
otherwise is extremely surprising, namely, the Masora
divides ch. vii., which describes one incident, at ver. 48,
into two Sabbath portions, which at first sight seems
unjustifiable. If, however, we assume that the 1st of
Nissan fell on Sunday, and that vi. 22 was the lesson for
the day before, then ver. 48, which begins with the 7th day,
is appropriate for the 7th Nissan. In this way viii. 1
would be read on the 14th of Nissan, and on the 15th,
ix. 1, the portion which, describing as it does the Pesach
festival, was peculiarly suitable to that day. According to
the continuous series of the Sedarim, Numbers xv. would
fall to the third Sabbath in Iyyar. This view is endorsed
by tradition, since it declares {Sifre to xv. 32) that the
Sabbath, which is described in this section as having been
violated, was the second which the Israelites had spent
in the desert. How does the author of this statement
440 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
arrive at so exact a date ? From the circumstance that
this Seder was the lesson for the third Sabbath. He
infers, moreover, that this Sabbath was the 22nd Iyyar,
from the reckoning adopted by the Mechilta (to Exodus
xvi. 1), which dates as the loth of Iyyar, the first Sabbath
which the Israelites solemnised in the wilderness (B.
Baba Kama, 119«). The Talmud (Bab. Taanith, 30 b) makes
a statement which is worth consideration in respect to the
question when the Book of Numbers was finished. The
reason is asked there, Why should the 15th of Ab be
celebrated as a day of joy ? The answer given is that on
this day permission was given to the members of the
various tribes of Israel to intermarry with each other
(Cp. J. Taanith, iv. 9; B. Baba Kama, 115). The Talmud
has in mind Numbers xxxvi. and Judges xxi., in which
passages this intermarriage is allowed. Thus this portion
must have been the reading for the third Sabbath in Ab.
More force is probably added to this explanation by the
fact that Deuteronomy i. 3 mentions a date which (accord-
ing to the counting of Tishri as the first month), would fall
in EIul, the eleventh month, and this portion, therefore,
would have been appropriately read on the Sabbath before
1st Elul. From this it follows that the Decalogue was read
either on the Sabbath before the New Year, or on this day
itself.
We are only now in a position to explain an old tra-
dition which ascribes a certain institution in regard to
Torah reading to Ezra. In the Talmud (J. Megitta iv. 1)
ten innovations are referred back to Ezra, among which is
not to be found the one we are about to treat of. The
reason for this will soon be apparent. A Boraitha (B.
Meg. 316) says that Ezra enacted that the curses in
Leviticus xxvi. and Deut. xxviii. should be read re-
spectively before Shebuoth and Rosh Hashana. On the
assumption that when these unusual readings were in-
troduced, the regular triennial cycle of Sabbath por-
tions was in vogue, it is absolutely impossible to place
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 441
these two lessons on the two dates required. This
forced Gratz 1 to the conclusion that there was a bien-
nial cycle, for which, however, there is no other founda-
tion. Just as the reading from the Pentateuch on the
four special Sabbaths formed the first Sabbath lessons
without implying the existence of regular readings, even
so was it with these two instances. If they are of this
age, the question arises, What was the historical occasion
of the custom to read the curses on these fixed days ?
According to the triennial cycle, as we have already seen,
the Decalogue, Exod. xx., was read on Shebuoth, the same
in Deut. v. on New Year, and just before both of these the
curses were to be recited. Was there then any connection
between the Decalogue and the curses ? Now, in olden
times, it was not customary for the person called to read a
portion in the Law to say the benediction at the close of
his reading. In the Talmud (J. Meg. iii. 7) it is, however,
stated that the blessing over the Torah must be said after
the curses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. R. Joshua opposes
this opinion, contending that the Torah blessing should
accompany the Decalogue and the rrpa? in addition to
the curses. We thus see that the curses and Decalogue
were included under one category, which implies a rela-
tionship between the two. We notice that the maledictions
follow closely upon verse 4 in Deut. xxvii., which the Sama-
ritans falsified in order to prove the holiness of their
Temple ; yet they were not satisfied with this, but con-
sidered the interpolated verse of such importance as
to incorporate it as the tenth commandment in the
Decalogue. Against this proceeding the sages were
obliged to interpose as they did in respect to the festi-
vals, inasmuch as they joined together the two passages
which had been tampered with. This exposure of the
falsification of the Samaritans had to be clearly brought
out in reading Deut. xxvii. 12, where Mount Gerizim is
1 Monatsschrift, 1869, p. 396.
442 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
expressly named, and this purpose clearly appears in the
utterances of the Mishna (Sota vi. 4, Cp. Tosefta vi. and J.
Sota vii. 3). The Samaritans had also the custom of read-
ing the Decalogue on Shebuoth and the New Year (vide
Petermann, Rcise in Orient, p. 290).
It seems, then, that this institution of reading the curses
before these two festivals belongs to the time of the intro-
duction of the festival readings, which have been attri-
buted to Moses. Consequently then we would expect
that tradition should ascribe to Moses also the establish-
ment of the reading under discussion. This, however, is
impossible, since it was probably still known to the Rabbis
that the passages in question were directed against the
Samaritans who first made their appearance in the time of
Ezra. This institution, however, is not enumerated among
those ascribed to Ezra, since it was considered to be much
older. At any rate, we have here a confirmation of the
opinion that Deut. v. was read on New Year. On the
following Sabbath the Seder was vi. 4 to vii. 11, for
which in the treatment of the Haphtarah we shall find a
warranty in tradition.
We have not yet spoken concerning the Sedarim of the
first year of the triennial cycle.
Following the Massoretic division, Genesis iii. 24 to
iv. 26 falls to the first day of Passover, whereby we find the
source of the Midrash cited in the Targum pseudo-Jona-
than (to iv. 1), that Adam taught his sons how to bring
sacrifices, and that they brought a Pesach offering (v. Pirke
de R. Eliezer to the passage, and Yalkut). This was merely
a remark made in connection with the reciting of this
portion on first day of Pesach.
On the sixth Sabbath counted from the 1st Nissan,
falls the portion commencing with vi. 9, which fits in well
with the date given in vii. 11.
On the New Year, in this first year of the cycle, xxx. 22
was reached as the Scriptural lesson of the day, which
Seder commences with the words : " God remembered
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 443
Kachel," and harmonises with the declaration of the Aggada
that Rachel was remembered on New Year's day (B. Bosh
Hash., 10b)} When once it was assumed that one of the
matriarchs was remembered on this day by God in respect
to the blessing of children, the idea broadened to include
Rebecca and Sarah as well. Hence comes it that the por-
tion describing how Sarah was visited by God was selected
as the reading for New Year, i.e., Genesis xxi. The first
book was finished in the middle of Shebat, and the second
was begun on the third week . of the same month. It
is worthy of remark, though perhaps only a mere coin-
cidence, that the first book of the Pentateuch commenced
on the 1st of Nissan, the fifth on the 1st of Elul, the
third on the first of Tishri, the second and fourth on
the 15th of Shebat, thus corresponding to the four
dates given in the Mishna (Rosh Hash., i. 1) as first
days of the year for various subordinate purposes, e.g.
the tithing of animals and fruit. We shall soon return
to this point.
In the consideration of the divisions according to the
triennial cycle, we have found the origin for the substitu-
tion for the original festival readings out of Leviticus xxiii.
of altogether new Sedarim, which have often no connec-
tion with the holidays on which they are read. We have
also discovered that the development of the institution
is closely connected with the introduction of the regular
Sabbath readings. In possession of this important infor-
mation we can now still further follow the development of
1 M. Schechter called my attention to the dates in the Midrash Tadshe,
which agree with those in the Book of the Jubilees (v. Epstein JIVJIDlpD
D*"11?Vn, p. iv. ff.) In the eighth chapter of this work the days are given
on which the twelve tribal fathers were born ; it is evident that Levi
and Joseph form the basis of this reckoning, perhaps indeed only the
latter, the date of whose death alone is stated in the Pentateuch. If we
notice the date given by the Midrash Tadshe as the birthday of Joseph, we
find that it is the first of Tishri, the day on which,according to the triennial
cycle, the Seder telling of his birth would fall. The birthday of Benja-
min (Talkut, No. 162), on 11th Chesvan, follows from the reading of
Genesis xxxv. on this day.
444 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
the festival lessons. We have already pointed out the fact
that the Mishna ordains the reading of Deut. xvi. 9 on
Shebuoth {Megilla iii. 5). This has no foundation in the
division of the Sedarim, and proceeds from the time when
the festival portions had not yet been reorganised by the
introduction of the regular Sabbath portions, at which
period it was confidently believed that the opposition of
the Samaritans and the Sadducees could be better met by
these passages. 1 (Compare the remarks of the Sifre to the
passage.) It seems that in many localities this reading was
retained long after the introduction of Exod. xx., for the
Tractate Sopherim (xvii. 6), which always takes the Pales-
tinian Talmud into consideration, gives the Mishna un-
altered and not the account in the Talmud {J. Megilla,
iii. 7). This latter passage names expressly Exod. xx., the
portion derived from the ordinary course of the Sabbath
readings. The Tosefta {Megilla iv. 5) and the Boraitha
{B. Megilla 31«) cite the same Seder. 2 The two Pesiktas
have both pieces alternately, which proves the indefinite-
ness of practice to have survived after the completion of
the Palestinian Talmud.
The same progress in the development is to be noticed
in the lessons for the Day of Atonement and New
Year; yet it seems that the portion Levit. xxiii. 23-25,
containing only three verses, was taken and long adopted
as the reading in many districts, since the Pesikta of K.
Kahana knows only of this, and the Pesikta Eabbati bases
1 The assumption of the Pisqe Tossaphoth to Megilla, No. 108, which
is also adopted by Miiller (Tractate Sopherim p. 242), that Leviticus xxiii.
was no longer read because it had already been used as the lesson for
Passover is so far weak, inasmuch as originally only those verses of
Levit. xxiii. were recited which were peculiar to the festivals on which
tbey were to be read. It was not the whole chapter that was read on each
festival.
8 Maimonides (n?3D niD/Tl xiii.) opines that Deut. xvi. was the
chapter established by rule, and Exod. xix. that generally adopted.
This is in accordance with the method usually followed by him in the
whole section on the Torah reading.
The Triennial Beading of the Law and Prophets. 445
a homily on it near to one which has as its text Ge-
nesis xxi. It might have been confidently expected that
the Babylonian Jews, who have readings for both days
of the festival, should have accepted those which have the
guarantee of tradition for their selection, since, where
possible, they invariably followed the practice of the Pales-
tinians, instead of which, however, we find in the Tal-
mud that the original lesson was altogether excluded,
the section for the second day of New Year beiDg Gene-
sis xxii. The fact that the Midrash (on the passage) shows
that the event recorded in this portion happened on New
Year's Day proves only that it knew of its recital on that
occasion; it says nothing, however, to explain the actual
introduction of the Seder. Let us consider the change
which ensued in the Synagogue after the institution of
regular sabbatical readings.
Formerly there were few readings during the year, and
ifc was necessary on every occasion to roll the Torah to its
allotted place. Now, however, there were Scriptural lessons
every Sabbath and Festival, and there was no necessity to
look specially for the various portions for occasional festi-
vals, since the Torah was read through continuously. Since
now there was a new institution in progress of establish-
ment, and the religious leaders and teachers wished to
accustom the people to the innovation, they enunciated
the following rule : That henceforward no columns of the
Torah were to be skipped over in proceeding from one
section to another (Megilla, iv. 5). That this was still ob-
served in the time of the Amoraim in the third century
is evidenced from the question of an Amora who asked
(J. Megilla, iv. 5) what was to be done when the portion
was too brief. He had probably in mind Leviticus xxiii.
23-25, from which place perhaps many attempted to proceed
direct to Numbers xxix. We are also told the reason on
account of which the sages did not permit this rolling, so
"that Israel should read through the Torah in continuous
fashion." The Babylonian Jews also obeyed this rule, in-
446 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
asmuch as having selected Gen. xxi. for the first day of
the New Year, in order that they should not be under
the necessity of rolling the Torah to another place, they
chose Gen. xxii. as the reading for the second day. We
shall notice again a similar proceeding on the part of the
Babylonian Jews. When this Seder was adopted as the
New Year portion, perhaps also by some Palestinian com-
munities as well, a theory arose in connection with it
that Abraham's attempted sacrifice of his son happened
on this day. It need only be added that after the intro-
duction of regular Sabbath readings the passages that
were reached for the festivals in Genesis, -Leviticus, and
Deuteronomy happened to be suitable for those occasions.
In none of the three years, however, was there any re-
ference made to Succoth in the chapters that were ap-
portioned to it in the regular cycle. Hence there was a
return to the original Seder for the day.
This commenced according to the Tosefta {Megilla iv. 8)
with xxiii. 33, which it is necessary to point out, since the
Pesikta d'R Kahana starts its consideration of the festival
portion with v. 40, though this commentary always begins
its exposition with the first verse. If we recall to our
memory the establishment of the festival Sedarim and their
historical origin, we notice that the remarks of the Midrash
apply to the verse which was the cause of contention be-
tween the Samaritans and the Pharisees, and which there-
fore required interpretation ; the festival reading, however,
opened with an earlier verse. 1
1 This explanation forms the basis of the remarkable passage ^1 *DJJ
?X"IB" in the Targum pseudo-Jonathan, and in the Targum Yerushalmi
on Leviticus xix. 16 and xxv. 15. This embellishment of the Targum is
apparent also in Levit. xxii. 27, where in later times the Pesaoh Seder
commenced ; in Numbers xxviii. 2, Deut. xvi. 1, in the beginning of the
festival readings with which are connected the Midrashic expositions, as
e.g., the homilies of the Pesikta (V. Rappoporb in Erech Millin, p. 169*)-
It is also noticeable in Deut. xiv. 22, which as in the other instances cited
formed the opening verse of the festival Seder only in later times. In the
two first-mentioned quotations, in a similar fashion to the Pesikta, the
embellishment of the Targum is not found at all to the opening verses,
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 447
For the eighth day, which according to the Halacha is
an independent festival, the Mishna does not assign any-
special Seder, since this was included under the compre-
hensive expression rvn:np3 2J"in nw bs "iNt»j (Meg. iii. 5),
and therefore had, as its Scriptural lesson, Num. xxix. 35.
Originally, as in seventh day of Pesach, either there was
no lesson at all or the reading probably was taken from
Leviticus xxiii., where the holiday is mentioned. When,
however, Numbers xxix. was fixed for "TCnnn bin, the
passage above quoted was set aside for the eighth day.
It cannot be determined when it was that Deut. xvi. was
apportioned to this festival, nor can its introduction be
explained, since not only was no reference made to the
holiday in question in this portion, but Tabernacles is also
described here as a seven-day feast. 1
We noticed above in the Mechilta that R. Eliezer dated
the death of Moses on 7th of Shebat. If now our theory
is the correct one, there must have been a completion of
the Torah readings on this day. That this was really the
case we shall shortly establish on the basis of many state-
ments in the Midrash. Here it need only be remarked
that Deut. xvi. — the assigning of which by tradition to
mSB WOW bristles with difficulties — in accordance with a
triennial division ending on 7th of Shebat, really falls on
this feast, thus solving the problem satisfactorily. Since
but commences with a later one, where there is some difficulty that re-
quires smoothing over, or where some special remark is to be made. This
explains also the statement of It. Chanina {Lev. Rabba, cap. iii.) that
Leviticus ii. 3 formed the opening verse in a certain synagogue (S. Fried-
man, Beth Talmud, III., p. 169), and the ten commandments, which, as the
Petikta Jlabba shows, required individual exposition, have for the same
reason ten times ^NIB" '» ^OJ?.
1 The manner iD which the Boraitha (JB. Megilla, 31«) explains the
passage "11331 D'pni D1XD 1133H ^3 ]innxn 31D DV is very remarkable.
This forced and unintelligible interpretation arises from the fact that the
author of this expression could not give a better reason for the dependence
of the festival on this portion. He was bound to go to the sacrificial
observances to help him in this matter. (Cf . Hammanhig, p. 71.)
448 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
the Babylonian Jews required Sedarim for two days, and
since, as already shown, no appropriate passage for Taber-
nacles was derived from the triennial cycle, they were
obliged to repeat the first day's reading on the second.
This proves that they were not in the habit of rolling the
Torah from place to place, since, had they wished, they
might have turned to Deut. xvi., and recited that on
the second day. They appointed Deut. xxxiii. as the
portion for the additional (9th) day of the festival. Yet
there is no Talmudical foundation for assuming that this
section was selected for that occasion, because, indepen-
dently of a purposed selection, the Torah was then in the
regular course of the cycle brought to an end ; nor that
in the time of the Talmud, mifi nn»27 was already con-
nected with the finishing of the Law (v. Gratz, Monats-
schrift, 1869, p. 394). The choice of this Seder is even now
inexplicable to me.
Having examined the series of festival readings,
we can now devote our attention to the Sedarim of
the four special Sabbaths. There is something, how-
ever, to be said first about the series itself. The Mishna
already lays down the rule (Megilla, iii. 4) that on Sab-
bath, the first of Adar, or on the Sabbath immediately
preceding it, Shekalim should be read ; on the Sabbath
before Purim, Zachor ; on the following week, Para ; and
on the Sabbath before the 1st Nissan, Hachodesh. The
two Talmuds explain in full the arrangement of the four
Parashas which were read between the last Sabbath in
Shebat and the last in Adar, the number of Sabbaths in
this interval varying in different years. The question,
which we cannot suppress in face of this strict regulation,
how does this series come about, and why are these four
anomalous portions recited in the same month, and not in
different months, we can answer very simply in accordance
with the suggestions made above.
The Sedarim of the year came to an end on the first
Sabbath in Adar ; there were consequently four Sabbaths
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 449
unprovided with portions, since the Torah was recom-
menced on 1st Nissan. The four unusual Sedarim were
therefore apportioned to these days. According to this
view, Shekalim should he read on the second Sabbath of
Adar, which is inconsistent with the Mishnaic ruling on
the subject. Does this not also betoken development ? We
understand how it is that the Parasha Hachodesh, which
deals with the 1st Nissan, should have been read on the
Sabbath before the New Moon, or on the New Moon itself,
when this fell on the Sabbath. For in the second year of
the cycle whose initiatory reading was this portion, we
saw clearly that it was read on the second Sabbath before
Passover. Further, it is conceivable that Zachor should be
placed in immediate proximity to Purim, since both Zachor
(Deut. xxv.) and Esther speak of artifices resorted to by
Israel's enemies. (The Aggada that Haman sprang from
the stock of the Amalekites had its origin in this juxta-
position). How stands the matter with Para and Sheka-
lim? In reference to the former, the Sifre (to Num. vii. 1)
remarks that the Red Heifer was on the first occasion
prepared on the 2nd Nissan, and in the Talmud (J. Meg,
iii. 6) an Amora declares that the section dealing with this
sacrifice must be read after Parasha Hachodesh. Hence it
follows that there really existed a time when this formed
the scriptural lesson for the first Sabbath in Nissan. At
this period the regular Sabbath readings had not yet
been introduced, and no obstacle stood in the way of
reciting this portion on the first Sabbath in Nissan when
Hachodesh had been read the Sabbath before. Now, how-
ever, since in consequence of the innovation of regular
readings, the Sabbaths in Nissan were supplied with Se-
darim regulated according to the triennial cycle, the
section describing the ceremony of the Red Cow had to be
transposed before Hachodesh. The above-mentioned Amora
explains that the dislocation in question was brought about
in order that the Israelites might before Nissan have their
vol. v. F F
450 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
attention called to the laws concerning the purifying of
the unclean.
Let us now turn to Shekalim. We pointed out above
that the controversy of the Sadducees in respect to the
employment of the shekel collection lasted from the 1st
to 8th Nissan, in commemoration of which controversy and
consequent decision these days were to be observed as
minor holidays. It is pretty evident, in the light of this
fact, that Shekalim, at the time of its introduction, was
read on the second Sabbath of Nissan, from which place
it was afterwards removed, in consequence of its interfering
with the regular Sabbath portions. The arrangement of
the four extraordinary Sedarim would accordingly be
Zachor, Para, Shekalim and Hachodesh respectively, for the
second, third, and fourth Sabbaths in Adar and the first
in Nissan. How, then, did the Mishna come to adopt its
series, and how came it that the Parashas were placed two
Sabbaths back ? In the Mishna (Shek i. 1) the fact is nar-
rated that every year, on 1st Adar, people were reminded
of their duty to contribute towards the Shekalim fund.
Although, indeed, in the Palestinian Talmud this publi-
cation is not identified with the reading of its appropriate
Biblical section, we are justified in assuming that the mis-
placement of Shekalim was due to the fact that it was
read to realise the above-mentioned object. It would now
be possible to assume, were it not expressly excluded in the
Mishna (Megilla, iii. 4), that the regular Sabbath reading
was interrupted, and the Seder, which had still to be
recited, was assigned to one of the Sabbaths in Adar,
which had not yet been endowed with a portion. We are
thus foi-ced to the opinion that the reading of the Sedarim
was brought to a conclusion on the last Sabbath before
Adar, and that the four following Sabbaths were left free
for the four Parashas. It is this way that Shekalim came to
be apportioned to 1st Adar ; and, therefore, according to the
order adopted, Hachodesh would be read about the middle
of Adar. This stage in the development also clearly ap-
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 451
pears in a controversy of the Tannaim, namely, a Boraitha
says {B. Pessachim 6a), DTlp TOSH msbm ^tmm V^MW
mram vw niais bwbm p ywaw pi dy» owbw nosn
" Lectures are held on the laws concerning Passover thirty
days before the festival ; R. Simeon b. Gamliel says two
weeks before " (v. Muller Tractate Sopherim, p. 144). The
real nature of this dispute can only adequately be gauged
by noticing that, according to the first opinion (which alone
is mentioned in the Tose/ta Meg. iv. 5), Hachodesh, which
formed the basis of the discourse, was read within thirty
days before the Passover, viz., on the Sabbath before the
15th Adar, on the ground that the ordinary Sedarim came
to an end on the second Sabbath of Shebat ; and, according
to the view of Simeon b. Gamliel, it was read on the first
of Nissan, on the assumption that the regular reading was
finished about the 7th Adar.
There was thus one partition of the Sedarim which
brought the course to an end on the second Sabbath of
Shebat. A confirmation of this theory is found in the
fact that R. Eliezer's opinion that Moses died on the 7th of
Shebat implies a conclusion of the Toi-ah about this time.
Already in the period of the compilation of the Mishna the
series was so arranged that the first of the four Parashas
should be Shekalim, which being read about the 1st Adar,
allowed for the proximity of Zachor to Purim, and the
reciting of Hachodesh before the 1st of Nissan. On the
first Sabbath in Nissan, according to the division generally
adopted, and described above, the usual reading of the Law
was recommenced.
As regards the portions themselves read in the four
extraordinary Sabbaths, they are not at all the portions
that would have been reached in the regular Sabbath
lessons, since these latter are of a much later date. The
Babylonian Jews were not agreed as to the exact sec-
tion of the Law which was to be read on the Sheka-
lim Sabbath. We see that the oldest Midrashic compila-
tions containing Halacha, the Mechilta, Sifra, and Sifre,
F F 2
452 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
make mention of neither the institution, nor of the Sedarim
read on the four special Sabbaths. We can infer from this
that with the destruction of Jerusalem not only did the
controversy cease between the Sadducees and the Phari-
sees, but the customs also which were the outcome of this
strife, since they applied only to the Temple worship.
The origin of the four Sabbaths, like many other facts,
was thus forgotten, whilst the custom of reading the allot-
ted portion was afterwards re-adopted, as a result of the
tendency to incorporate in the ritual every memento of the
Temple service. The Shekalim portion was not by any
means exempt from this general oblivion. Kab, about
210 C.E., when he returned to Babylon, heard a different
Seder read there than in Palestine. He knew Numbers
xxviii. 1 as the Shekalim Parasha. Samuel, on the other
hand (B. Megilla,29b), gives Exod. xxx. 11, where the She-
kalim are expressly mentioned. This latter view (loc. cit.)
is supported by a Boraitha which, describing the section by
its initial word, bears indisputable testimony to the fact
that Ex. xxx. 11 was read on Shekalim. Reverting to the
origin of the institution, we notice that in accordance with
the quotation from Megillath Taanith given above, the
Sadducean polemic raged about Numbers xxviii. 4. Con-
sequently Rab's opinion on this point, in addition to its
being trustworthy on account of his position as a pupil of
the Palestinian school, receives considerable support from
this fact. If we bear in mind, also, that in the portion
named by Samuel no word is mentioned about the employ-
ment of the Shekalim for the daily offering — the dispute
concerning which really formed the occasion of the reading
of Shekalim — it is clear that the Seder mentioned by
Samuel was not the original one selected. It owed its
introduction to the fact that the explicit allusion to the
Shekalim in Ex. xxx. 11 was calculated to commemorate
the old rite which had now fallen into disuse. Taking into
account the Boraitha above quoted, this Seder must also
have been read in Palestine. We must not forget as well
The Triennial Beading of the Law and Prophets. 453
that in this portion it is stated how the Shekalim were
to be applied to the offerings (J. Shekalim, i. 1). Both
Pesiktas, which like the Midrash are of Palestinian origin,
only treat of this Parasha. There are not wanting, how-
ever, some traces of the original reading. For both
Pesiktas, after having dealt with the Sedarim of the four
extraordinary Sabbaths, proceed to discuss a fifth, namely,
Numbers xxviii. 1. It was generally accepted that this was
provided in the event of New Moon of Nissan falling on a
Sabbath. Friedmann (Pesikta Rabbati on this passage),
however, has undeniably demonstrated that there is no
warranty for this assumption, by proving that it was des-
tined as a discourse for the first week of Nissan, for the
controversy between the Pharisees and Sadducees had
application to the rendering of this portion, and they were
polemically engaged on this matter at the beginning of
Nissan. If we add to this what was proved above, that
originally this Parasha was recited on the first Sabbath in
Nissan, it will become clear and intelligible to us how it
was that in the Pesiktas the discussion of Num. xxviii. 1
occurs just before the explanation of the portion read on
the first day of Pesach. There is no difference of opinion
in respect to the three other Sabbath Sedarim. The To-
sefta (Meg. iv. 4), which merely mentions a reading for
Shekalim without defining what chapter was to be read,
apportions Exodus xii. for Hachodesh, Numbers xiv. for
Para, and Deuteronomy xxv. 17 for Zachor.
We now reach the third stage in the development of the
public reading of the Law (see above, p. 427). This stage
concerns the lessons for the middle days of festivals, New
Moons, and ordinary Sabbaths, Of the changes in the last
named readings I have already spoken ; there are no im-
portant variations to be noticed in the lessons for the
middle days of festivals and the New Moons. For
rDID "TEian bin the Mishna selects Numbers xxix. 17-34,
from which the appropriate portions are to be taken for
the respective days. In the time of the Tannaim there
454 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
were no Parashas for JTDS "TOIttn bin, just as there was none
for the seventh day. Nor does the Palestinian Talmud
assign any portions for these days, and hence it may he
inferred that the reading during Pesach was at that time
confined to the first day, and, of course, "TOian bin natP.
Since, unlike Succoth, there were no successive Pentateuchal
portions treating of Pesach, the Tosefta (Megilla, iv. 5), with
a view to meeting this want, enacts that those readings
should be selected for TJJian bin which deal with
Pesach and which are found scattered throughout the
Torah. This method of proceeding, which has no analogy,
was suggested by the circumstance that on the second
year of the cycle Exodus xiii. was reached on the Sab-
bath during Pesach, and in the third year Numbers ix.
These sections could very well be made into Parashas for
"!E1Qn bin, since they both speak about Pesach. To these
were added Exodus xxiii. and xxxiv., these four pieces being
read on the four days, according to the order in which
they occur in the Torah. It was first in Babylon — in which
place the contents of the portion read was always taken
into account — that it was arranged that Exodus xxxiv.
should be selected for "TOinn bin row both on Pesach and
Succoth. And for this reason — that the Sabbath is men-
tioned there as well as the festival (B. Megilla, 31a). For
the other days the portions cited remained unchanged (cp.
Shibbole halleket, nDD, cap. 219). Numbers xxviii. 11 was
the only Seder that could be chosen for the New Moon, for
there is no other chapter in the Torah which could be ap-
propriately taken as the lesson for this occasion. The ques-
tion as to which was the initial verse of this portion was
first raised in Babylon (B. Megilla, 216). There it is laid
down that ten should be the least number of verses for a
week-day reading, and twelve for Rosh Hachodesh. It was,
therefore, resolved to commence the Parasha with verse 1.
When New Moon fell on Sabbath, the special portion for
this day alone was read in Palestine, the ordinary reading
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 455
for that Sabbath being omitted. 1 The later teachers first
combined both, and established that the special lesson for
the day should be read after the regular portion for that
Sabbath had been gone through.
In the same passage two other Sedarim are enumerated
for the minor holidays of Chanucca and Purim respectively,
which belong to the last stage of the development. These
feasts are reckoned among the days on which the serial
reading of the Torah is to be interrupted in favour of the
special festival portion. Since Chanucca is the Feast of
Lights, a part of the Torah had to be sought which treated
of the import of the same. This was found in Numbers
viii. 1, where the lights and the kindling of them
is described {Megilla, iii. 6 ; Sopherim, xx. 10). In vii. 84,
however, we find the expression iron roan nKT, which
formed a suitable beginning, not only on account of the
occurrence of the words rr33n, but because of its applica-
bility to the festival and its signification. Therefore did
the Mishna select HWIM DttHD for the Chanucca reading.
When this holiday was made equal to Pesach and Suc-
coth in respect to its being provided with daily readings,
the portion was begun at Numbers vii. 1, so that a different
piece could be read every day. Since the Seder (Sabbath
portion) opened with vi. 22, later authorities 2 {Halachoth
Pesucoth, p. 132) made this also the initial verse of the
Chanucca readings. The Tosefta does not apportion any
Parasha to Chanucca. This fact, combined with what was
remarked above, proves to us that Chanucca was not
always considered as equal to a half-festival. There was
probably a time when there was a Chanucca reading only
on Sabbath, or perhaps also on the eighth day. 3 It was
1 That the Mishna speaks of this, and not of the Haf tara, is clear from
the fact that there is mentioned the Day of Atonement, where it can
only be explained that the Sabbath portion lapses, and is substituted by
another.
* So also the MS. Catalogue Neubauer, No. 620, p. 79J.
3 Vide Sopherim xx. 10, and the second discourse of both Pesiktas to
Numbers vii. 54.
456 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
only at a comparatively late period that an every-day read-
ing was instituted for this feast (J. Megilla, iii. 6). It seems
also that originally there was special reading for Purim
only when it fell on Sabbath, and later on a portion was
introduced for the week-day, for the Tosefta here also does
not make mention of any Parasha.
Which was the original Parasha may be gathered from
the Mishna {Meg. iii. 4). The Mishna supposes a case where
the 1st of Adar falls on Sabbath, on which day Shekalim
would be read. There would thus be left four Sabbaths in
this month, the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th, and only three
special portions. This circumstance made it necessary to con-
sider one of these Sabbaths — here the first — as an ordinary
Sabbath. Otherwise — and this as was decided above, is
impossible — there would be an ordinary reading on the last
Sabbath of the year. Thus it happened that Zachor was
read on the 15th (Purim), no special lesson being assigned
for a week-day Purim. When, however, it was observed
that a portion treating of the Amalekites was read on
Sabbath, which was at the same time Purim, a similar
piece, namely, Exod. xvii. 8, was chosen for Purim should
it fall on a week-day.
We have still to mention among the extraordinary read-
ings those in vogue on fast-days, to which the Mishna has
allotted {Megilla, iii. 6) mbbpl rrD~0, i.e., Deuteronomy
xxviii., or Leviticus xxvi.
Before we proceed to investigate the reason for this
remarkable selection, we notice that the Tosefta mentions
only the 9th Ab, and quotes two opposing views as to
which of two portions should be read, viz., Vision *6 dN, 1
or Deuteronomy iv. 25. This limitation of the rule shows
that originally the curses were read only on the 9th of Ab.
1 The portion chosen by the Mishna, and called by it ni?7p1 ri13")3
literally taken, would exclude the curses in Leviticus xxvi., -which are not
preceded as in Deuteronomy by blessings, each of which is headed by the
expression "|1"Q. From this we infer that J7DKTI 8? DS is incorrect,
and stands for JJDBTI tih DS iTfVI, Deut. xxviii. 15.
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 457
A confirmation of this theory is afforded by the contents
of the chapter, which describes the sorrows of a siege, and
the trials of an exile, such as that which befell Israel on
the 9th of Ab.
It was undoubtedly the contents of this piece which
caused it to be chosen. The same in other words was the
contents of the second section selected by the Tosefta,
namely, Deuteronomy iv. 25. Since we saw that a new
portion was never substituted for the original reading, un-
less for some good reason, we must again here consider the
Sabbath Sedarim. And, in fact, we notice that according
to the division of R. Eliezer, who brings the Torah to a con-
clusion on the 7th of Shebat, Deut. iv. 25 would actually
be reached on the 9th Ab. We find in the Boraitha (B.
Meg. 31«) a third portion assigned to the 9th of Ab, namely,
Numbers xiv. 11, or 26, where no reference to the fast-day
is apparent. If, however, we take into consideration the
remark of the Mishna (Taanith, iv. 6) that on the 9th of
Ab it was decided by God none of those Israelites who had
journeyed through the wilderness should reach the Holy
Land, we see that this choice was dependent on the Mishna.
This is a proof that the reading in question was of very
late introduction.
Since we have now dealt with the extraordinary readings
of the special days, we will return to the practice of
reading the Law on Saturday afternoon, and Monday and
Thursday mornings. The introduction of this rite is
ascribed to Ezra. This reading was instituted on the two
week-days with the object of giving instruction to the
villagers who came to the town on these days. This, how-
ever, cannot be the reason which caused the Sabbath after-
noon lesson to be established, for no one came to town on
the Sabbath. It probably originated with the desire to
have a Torah portion with the usual Saturday afternoon
discourse (v. Rappoport, Ercch Millin, article NmtaSM).
Since the ordinary Sabbath Parasha had been read in the
morning it was deemed advisable to commence in the after-
458 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
noon with the verse immediately after the concluding pas-
sage of the morning's portion. Although it was Sabbath
yet the ordinary rules of the Sabbath Sedarim were not
adopted in connection with the afternoon readings, but
they were scheduled in this respect with the weekly
readings. And for this reason: The arrangement of the
Sabbath portions was already firmly established, and there
would be an objection against interfering with it; and on
this account it was determined not to read a whole Seder
on Sabbath afternoon.
This question, however, cannot be so summarily disposed
of. The Mishna, indeed, says {Meg. iii. 6) that the portion
read on the three above-mentioned occasions, should be
repeated on the Sabbath following, for, otherwise, those
portions, which ai'e peculiarly appropriate for certain days,
would not actually form their Pentateuchal lessons. This
gives colour to the opinion that there must have been
many synagogues, or localities, where the custom was not
adopted of repeating the weekly reading on the imme-
diately succeeding Sabbath, and, in fact, the Tosefta {Meg.
iv. 10) names R. Judah as an advocate of this view. How
then did this Tanna read the Torah ? Did he adopt a
triennial cycle ? Or was Gratz correct {Monatsschrift, 1869,
p. 396) in assuming that E. Judah read through the Torah
in two years ? Let us revert for a few minutes to the result
of our previous considerations. We found that the cycle
of the Torah portions was generally commenced on the 1st
of Nissan, and this was necessary, so that several Sidras
should fall on certain festivals. The statements in the
Mechilta make it clear that this coincidence was suffi-
ciently established by the ordinary division of the portions.
It was further shown that the Torah was read continuously
from the 1st of Nissan to the 7th of Adar, and that
originally it was not necessary to look for other Parashas
outside the usual Sabbath Sedarim.
Since by taking into account the Sabbath and festival
portions, there were at least fifty-four Sedarim in an
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 459
ordinary year, the whole constitution of the division into
Sedarim is shaken, for the Massora enumerates only one
hundred and fifty-five for three years. If we consider
more closely the festival portions, Exodus xii. 29, for the
first day of Pesach ; xiii. IT, for the seventh ; xx. 1, for
Shebuoth, in the second year of the cycle ; and Numbers
ix. 1, for the first day of Pesach in the third year, we
notice that these lessons do not start at the beginning of
Sedarim, but are only parts of Sedarim which are more
lengthy than others. This may be proved also to apply,
without exception, to all the readings of the festivals,
and the four extraordinary Sabbaths, and in this way
all difficulty is removed.
Thus, only one hundred and forty-one, or since there is a
leap year among the three, one hundred and forty-six
Sedarim would be required. The remaining nine, which
the Massora gives in addition, were instituted — as many
portions were in the annual cycle — for the purpose of
supplying with lessons those Sabbaths which are added to
certain years, and also to make it possible that the appro-
priate passages should be assigned to the right occasions.
When this surplus was not necessary, two Sedarim were
read on one Sabbath, as was shown distinctly in the de-
tailed account of the triennial cycle. We saw also, that
it was afterwards introduced to read the ordinary Sabbath
Seder together with the portion of the extraordinary
Sabbath, so that one hundred and sixty-one Parashas were
required for three years. In fact, Menachem Meiri, as
mentioned above, enumerates just this number of Sedarim,
the origin of which is now clear to us. The one hundred
and sixty-seven of the Manuel (loc. tit.) are to be explained
only as a provision for possible emergencies, as we found
was the case with the one hundred and fifty-five of the
Massora, especially since, through the introduction of the
established Kalendar, every one of the years forming the
triennial cycle could at one time or other be a leap year,
three books of the Pentateuch had to always contain four
460 The Jeicish Quarterly Review.
more Sedarim than were otherwise strictly necessary.
Genesis, which was begun on 1st Nissan, and Leviticus
which was begun on 1st Elul, did not require this extra
division, since the reading of both these books concluded on
the 15th of Shebat, sc that they had no concern with the
additional month of the leap year. Indeed, we notice that
the Massora, Meiri, and the author of the Manuel, while
differing considerably in their enumeration of the Sedarim
in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, are in perfect
agreement as regards the computation of the Sedarim in
Leviticus, and differ only in a slight degree in respect to
Genesis.
It is possible to discover with some degree of probability
the origin of the division of the Tractate Sopherim (loc. cit.)
into one hundred and seventy -five parts — if this really ever
existed in fact. I have already remarked that the Festival
Parashas, and those selected for the four extraordinary
Sabbaths, do not indeed form independent Sedarim. If
now we enumerate these individually — Exod. xii. 1, xiii.
17, xx. 1, xxx. 9 ; Lev. xvi. 1 ; Num. xix. 1, xxii. 26 ;
Deut. xv. 19, xxv. 17 — and perhaps also the Chanucca
and Purim Parashas, we have nine or eleven portions
which might have been taken as special Sedarim. We
have now to add to this the one hundred and sixty-six
divisions which the author above mentioned perhaps
arrived at, and in this [way we obtain the number one
hundred and seventy-five. 1
To be sure, the question can be asked, How could the
author of the one hundred and seventy -five computation
go so far as to consider the eight verses in Exod. xxx. 1-8,
as a special Seder, since tradition always assigns twenty-
one verses as a Sabbath portion ? This leads us to discuss
1 Some colour is added to this view by the division according to the
annual cycle, which arranges four of the enumerated passages as new
weekly portions ; there are very few instances, namely, Gen. xviii. 1,
xxvii. 28 ; Lev. vi. 1, etc., in which a weekly portion according to the
annual cycle commences otherwise than with a new Massoretic Seder.
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 461
the question as to what was the number of verses read on
Sabbaths and Festivals in most ancient times.
If we examine the division of the Sedarim given by
the Massora which, in consequence of its having the smallest
amount of portions contains the most lengthy Sedarim, we
find the following readings — Gen. xii. 1-9, xxv. 1-18;
Num. xi. 16-22, xxv. 1-9 ; and Deut. xxiii. 10-21 — which
comprise less verses than tradition requires. Let us, how-
ever, consider the traditional statements on the subject.
The Mishna says {Meg. iv. 4) " Whoever reads out of
the Law publicly, shall read no less than three verses ;
to the translator, however, no more than one." (The
Meturgeman expounded every verse in Aramaic to the
people after it was given forth in Hebrew, because they
no longer understood the original language of the Torah.)
Further, we are told {Meg. iv. 1) that on Sabbath afternoon
and Monday and Thursday mornings, three persons should
be called to read the lesson from the Law ; on New Moon
and iyi»n bin, four ; on festivals, five ; on the Day of
Atonement, six ; and on Sabbath, seven. This arrange-
ment may have been carried out in two ways. Either every
person read the same three verses, or another three, in
which latter case there must have been nine, twelve, fifteen,
eighteen, and twenty-one verses respectively. Yet in the
Massoretic division we meet with Sabbath Sedarim that
contain only seven, eight, and nine verses. Are we not
compelled to admit a development from the origin of the
Sabbath Sedarim to its firm establishment in the ritual
which is found in the Massora, and from ancient times,
till the period when the Mishna enumerated rules for the
same ?
If we take into consideration one of the most extensive
of the Sabbath readings — the verses in Leviticus xxvi.
3-46 — verses 3-13 would fall, in lots of three verses, to the
first three persons ; 14-46, which were not to be inter-
rupted, to the fourth, and the Seder is thus brought to a
finish ; so that a portion of such great length was not
462 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
sufficient, for seven persons. This indeed it is difficult to
assume. 1 Neither the Mishna nor the Tosefta mentions the
twenty-one verses, nor do they say anything concerning
the rule that the seven persons should each read three
different verses. We find only the following enactment in
the Tosefta {Meg. iv. 17): "No less than three verses should
be recited; should, however, the Parasha contain four, the
person called up must read all ; if five, then the first reads
three, and leaves the remaining two to the next comer, who
adds, as a third verse, the first of the following portion."
The Talmud (J. Meg. 75a) mentions a Boraitha which
speaks of the twenty-one verses. These, however, were
applied to the Haftara, and not to the Pentateuchal lesson.
What must be considered the original method of reading
the Torah can only be derived from the oldest festival
portions, which indeed formed the earliest of the Pentateuch
Sedarim. If we examine for a few moments the discussion
(J. Meg. iv. 3) as to whether six or seven 2 persons should
1 This difficulty gave rise in the third century to the discussion as to
where the Tochecha ended. In Yelamdenu we find : 3T nnDlfl p\T 1J?
nsnj ny i»k pnv n nbbp ny i»k bnm&\ nmn ny idk (vide &w
des Etudes Juives, vol. xiv., p. 94). We have already seen several times
that Rav had a compendious code of rules for the reading of the Torah ;
the Boraitha in Meg. 31a, which contains all the portions for the festivals
and lyiDn Till, fathers the tradition for the same on him. We shall see
that R. Jochanan had equal importance in Palestine.
2 The Day of Atonement is considered in the Halacha as equal in every
respect to the Sabbath, and not as a festival (Meg. i. 5). Yet, as we shall
now see, this was not the reason which prompted the calling-up of seven
persons on the Day of Atonement as on Sabbath. It is, however, probable
that the afternoon reading on Atonement was occasioned from its being
scheduled with Sabbath, which, as we have already noticed, had an after-
noon portion. Neither the Mishna nor the Tosefta nor Palestinian Talmud
know of its existence. The Boraitha (Meg. 31a) mentions it, together
with its Haftara, which statement, like others, probably originated with
Rab. The portion is Leviticus xviii., which was chosen, in spite of the
utter want of connection between the festival and its contents, in obedi-
ence to the rule quoted above, that the Torah should not be rolled on
festivals from one place to another. In Babylon the seventeenth chapter
was also read (perhaps even in Palestine as well, according to the Bo-
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 463
be called up to the Torah on the Day of Atonement, and
if we divide the original Atonement Seder (Lev. xxiii. 26
— 32) into six or seven sections, we immediately see that
the whole consists only of seven verses, the first containing
the five words J-linrf? 7TOB b& 'n "OT1.
Let us, in addition, take into consideration another Bo-
raitha (B. Meg. 21b), which treats of the question whether
this verse, which is merely an introductory formula, ought
to be reckoned as part of the lesson from the Torah (cp. J.
Meg. iv. 3, and J. Kethuboth ii. 10). From the fact that it
is emphatically stated that this verse is to be reckoned
amonc the others, it is clear that there was formerly a
doubt on this matter ; and we see that this question must
have applied also to the Seder for the Day of Atonement.
If we count this verse with the others we have seven ;
if not, six ; and now we understand what was the point
of discussion, and what the basis of controversy. The
general practice was to call up only six persons to the
Torah, since there were only six verses which had any sub-
stance in them. E. Akiba, however, in whose eyes, it is
well-known, every word of the Torah was of equal import-
ance (v. Bacher, Aggadader Tannaiten, I., p. 308), would not
allow of any verse being esteemed of less value than the
others, and on this account seven persons had, according
to R. Akiba, to be called up to the Torah on the Day of
raitha, if the remark there is not an interpolation, because it was impossible
to skip any part of the text). But it cannot be decided whether it was
read in the morning with ch. xvi., or in the afternoon with ch. xviii.
Ilalachoth Eesuboth, p. 38, adds it to ch. xvi.
The statement given in a portion of a MS. which probably belonged to
the Siddur of Saadyah is worthy of notice (Neubauer, Catalogue, No.
e. 25. p. 2), namely, that there existed in many Synagogues the practice
of reading the law and Haftara to Neilah as well. The wording of this
passage of the MS. runs as follows :— ^3p jnp> N")BD JUID' 1 HIT Dipi
^a'S 1H D^l *TIN *»ip JVlOEn rmim r6*ja It was noticed that the
fast days had a special afternoon portion, and since Yom Kippur was a fast
day, a third reading was added to that adopted on account of its re-
semblance to Sabbath. Saadyah, however, unreservedly rejects this opinion.
464 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
Atonement. At any rate, it is to be inferred from
this discussion that only one verse was read by each
person. This is confirmed by the practice in vogue of
dividing the reading of the Law on festivals amongst five
individuals; for, originally, the Pesach Seder contained
only five verses, namely, Leviticus xxiii. 4-8. The oldest
Sabbath lessons were, we have already seen, those of the
four extraordinary Sabbaths, the first of these being the
Parasha recited on Sabbath Shekalim, namely, Numbers
xxviii. 1-8. In this section the first verse is, like that of
the Seder for the Day of Atonement, without substantial
contents; so that only seven remain, whence arose the
custom of calling up seven persons to the Torah every
Sabbath. Already, then, in ancient times, there was in
vogue the practice of having a different number of indi-
viduals engaged in reading the Law on different occasions,
namely, five, six, and seven. When, therefore, "TOlttn bin
was provided with a portion, in order to make a distinction,
it was determined to have four persons on those days,
and finally, three on week days. The original basis for
these numbers was no doubt soon forgotten and it was
adopted that three verses should form the portion read by
each individual. Thus it came about that twenty-one
verses were fixed for the Sabbath Seder. Yet the Mishna
preserves traces of the old usage. It was not allowed
{Meg. iii. 1) that more or less persons should read the
Torah on week-days and "TElian bin than was ordained.
It was necessary to enunciate this rule, and to permit no
exception, since these occasions were supplied with read-
ings for the first time in the days of the Mishna, and the
portions which the sages arranged for the same — such as
Numbers xxviii. 11-15 (five verses) and xxix. 17-19 (three
verses) — sometimes contained more and sometimes less
verses than was the number of persons who had to be
called up to the Torah.
On Festivals and Sabbaths, however, the Mishna regis-
tered no protest against the practice of having more than
The Triennial Beading of the Lata and Prophets. 465
five or seven persons to read the Torah respectively ; for
the custom existed of old to read Lev. xxiii. 15-22 on
Shebuoth, and 33-44 on Succoth, both of which comprised
more than five verses, and, therefore, more than five per-
sons were engaged in their recital. We can also consider
as a relic of the usage that every person should read only
one verse, the practice of the Meturgeman in the syna-
gogue, who translated every verse individually. Having
regard to the connection between the verses, this proceed-
ing would never have been allowed, were it not that it was
derived from an old custom of reading the verses one by
one. We find also in the Talmud (B. Baba Kama, 82a)
traces of the conviction that less verses were read at a
previous period. For it is stated there that Ezra extended
the week-day reading to include ten verses, whilst the Pro-
phets contented themselves with nine verses. Since, then,
seven verses were sufficient for Sabbath, we can now under-
stand how it is that, amongst the Sedarim given by the Mas-
sora, there are some containing only seven, eight, or nine
verses. And, even when the rule was established to appor-
tion three verses to every person, this custom of having
short Sedarim did not altogether lapse ; for we see clearly,
from the assigning (J. Meg. iii. 6) of Numbers xxviii. 11-15
as the Sabbath New Moon Seder, even if verses 1-10 are
added, there is only sufficient for two verses to each person.
It was, indeed, equally unintelligible to the Amoraim how
it was that people were satisfied with such a small Seder ;
yet the practice in the synagogue bore testimony against
that very rule. If a Sabbath Seder, on the other hand,
happened to be lengthy, more than seven persons were
occupied in its reading. This custom is testified to by
E. Jochanan, who arranged the readings in Palestine, and
R Joshua b. Levi (B. Meg., 32a), both of whom mention
ten persons as a possible number for a Sabbath portion.
On the basis of these considerations, we can now very
easily answer the question how it was that the Penta-
teuch was sufficient for a triennial reading for R. Jehudah,
VOL. V. G G
466 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
who would not allow the weekly portion to be repeated
on the Sabbath. Every one of the three weekly lessons
contained for him three verses, and the Sabbath lesson
seven verses, so that a Seder need only have consisted
of sixteen verses in order to have included all the weekly
readings. The Talmudic rules, which enact that at least ten
verses should form the week-day portion and twenty-one
verses for Sabbath, are a product of a later age, at which
period also the opinion was adopted, which the Mishna
makes mention of, that the portion which was read during*
the week was to be repeated on the Sabbath following (J.
Taanith, iv. 3; B. Meg., 216); and even then these rules
were only theoretically accepted in Palestine. They were
not actually followed in synagogal practice, which view the
Massoretic partition of the Sedarim fully endorses. The
Babylonian Jews, who strictly adhered to the traditional
rules emanating from Palestine, and made them the bases
of further development, were the first to carry out these
rules to the letter. As it has already been stated, it was
Rab who, coming from the Palestinian schools, first
brought into vogue in Babylonia the decisions of the
Palestinian teachers. Perhaps it was he who reorganised
the triennial reading of the Law, and arranged it accord-
ing to an annual cycle; for we see that the final and
permanent institution of the Pentateuch and Prophet
portions for festivals and minor holidays is quoted in his
name (B. Meg., 31a).
It cannot be decided with certainty what caused him to
make such a radical innovation. He might have been
influenced by the idea that every command in the Torah
applies to each year, and that, therefore, it was right and
proper to read the same portions year by year on those
days to which these passages are peculiarly appropriate.
The principal question to be dealt with is, When was the
annual cycle of the readings to be commenced ? We have
already determined this from statements quoted above from
the Mishna, but only in respect to a triennial cycle, to which
The Triennial Reading of the Law and Prophets. 467
they apply. How was it to be decided in accordance with
the annual cycle adopted by the Babylonian Jews ? Tradi-
tion informs us (B. Meg., 316) that Ezra introduced the
custom of reading the curses in Lev. xxvi. before Shebuoth,
and those in Deut. xxviii. before New Year. A date is
thus given for these two Sedarim, and also, at the same
time, for the beginning of the cycle. For since Deut. xxviii.
had to be read before New Year, and the Palestinian
festival portions were retained by the Babylonians, the
Pentateuch could only have been brought to an end in
Tishri ; hence arose the custom of commencing Genesis
immediately after the concluding festival (rmn n.natP).
On the basis of these three dates being assigned to their
respective portions, 1 the Torah was divided into weekly
Sedarim. There was as little deviation as possible from
the Palestinian partition. Very few new Parashas were
added, and even then they were founded on the Palestinian
division. Thus Genesis xxiii. 1, was added where the New
Year's portion ends ; and, as mentioned above, other
Parashas were added at the point where the old festival
readings and those read on the extraordinary Sabbaths
began. Leap year necessitated a further division of the
weekly portions. Since it was desired to maintain in its
integrity the dates mentioned, it does not seem that the
passages where the necessary division had to be made was
absolutely determined on. For in the later Middle Ages
we find a number of works which proffer different ac-
counts on this matter.
At the time when the rules for the week-day readings
were established, the fundamental principle was laid down
never to commence or finish a portion with words of
ill omen. Thus early the portion Deut. xxxii., which is a
1 It seems that the dates mentioned above, when the separate books
were finished in Palestine, had a great influence over the division of the
portions, since Leviticus, following the Boraitha, was concluded before
Shebuoth, Numbers in the first week of Ab, Exodus about the 1st of
Nissan, and Genesis during Shebat.
GG 2
468 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
chapter of trials and troubles, was divided, not only for
the seven persons on Sabbath, but also on week-days {Trac-
tate Sopherim xii. 8, 9 ; cp. Harkavy, Responsen der Gaonen,
p. 96). 1 All, however, did not at once accept a similar divi-
sion. A fragment {Catalog. Neubauer, Appendix No. e. 45,
p. 6a) tells of a difference in the division into seven
parts, as follows: — ^>lb 7V1 " NTO p HTip "lltM b«nt0 , »1
dt« dv anp o ~iv\ ">bib p *mp -ins bwiun ms o»a
Vpws "ot» ^a^Datp rrpnsNa )mp» nt&a jmp inn Vni
dy-n dv amp "oi lass "osa ins pes apa "«b nn« pwsa
Nia*»T yji dyn dv anp "O pi • lass -asa «m -win pws
*11d iyi ntpa nwj p snip -ins N-np -ito VN-iaro nt&a
.nttnon
Thus one verse was divided into two, in order to con-
clude with words of good hope and cheer.
There are yet many questions which arise in connection
with the transformation of the triennial into the annual
cycle. These, however, cannot be dealt with in the limits
of this essay. I shall, however, return to many of them in
a subsequent article treating of the Prophetical readings.
Adolf Buchlbr.
1 Cp. Jer. Meg ilia III. 7, and Bab. Bosh Hash. 31o. It is again Eab
who says that this chapter has to be divided for the reading in the
synagogue in the same way as the Levites did it in the Temple.
